Rivera v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rivera v. New York City Housing Authority

235 A.D.2d 296, 652 N.Y.S.2d 287, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 452

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 21, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 296 (Rivera v. New York City Housing Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rivera v. New York City Housing Authority, 235 A.D.2d 296, 652 N.Y.S.2d 287, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 452 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered September 20, 1995, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to timely serve a proper notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that defendant was prejudiced by plaintiffs’ failure to provide the correct address of the building where the accident occurred until service of their summons and complaint, some nine months after the accident (Barno v New York City Hous. Auth., 185 AD2d 292; see also, Matter of Green v New York City Hous. Auth., 180 AD2d 586). We also agree with the IAS Court that there was no excuse for this delay, plaintiffs having been advised by defendant some three months after the accident that it did not own a building at the address given in plaintiffs’ notice of claim. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered September 20, 1995, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to timely serve a proper notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that defendant was prejudiced by plaintiffs’ failure to provide the correct address of the building where the accident occurred until service of their summons and complaint, some nine months after the accident (Barno v New York City Hous. Auth., 185 AD2d 292; see also, Matter of Green v New York City Hous. Auth., 180 AD2d 586). We also agree with the IAS Court that there was no excuse for this delay, plaintiffs having been advised by defendant some three months after the accident that it did not own a building at the address given in plaintiffs’ notice of claim. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 296, 652 N.Y.S.2d 287, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack